Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

That's not the point that I was making, nor was anyone else in the thread. Of course you can be manipulated by factors outside of religion. People routinely are. The difference is that with religion it's much easier. If you have a strong enough faith, then you don't need to be bribed or otherwise forced to do something. If your religious leader tells you to do something, or if you have a "vision" and believe it to be God telling you to do something directly, you're going to do it (unless you question your faith, which is something that is not often encouraged).

That's not the point. Leaders who are religious are potentially quite dangerous. Remember George Bush saying something about how God had told him that it was right to start up a war in the Middle East? Imagine if all of America were deeply religious: Oh, God spoke to our president, therefore it must be true! To the death, then, that we should all start war in the Middle East and kill every infidel who opposes us! Aren't you glad that we have some non-devout (although not necessarily athiest) people in this nation?

That is the danger. Any idiot can have a dream, but it takes a religious idiot to think that it was a dream sent by God and that there was some message in it with an order that overrides all common sense, morals, and ethics. When that religious idiot is in a powerful position, and when the other religious idiots go along with his dream, you're potentially in big trouble.

Of course I was quick to be defensive, too many people are too biased against religion. *snicker*

Number one, if you say religion makes manipulation easier, that still isn't the fault of a particular religion. This isn't a failing of a religion, this is a failing of corrupt men. It only makes manipulation easier because so many people deeply value religion and/or spirituality. That is not the fault of religion and spirituality, and these things being used to manipulate people for bad agendas is indeed a very immoral thing.

Atheists never started holy wars, but they've started wars. And they can declare war over ideologies and principles they strongly believe in and push upon their societies.

Also, Bush doesn't represent all Christians, not by a long shot.

Religion, on the whole (please note that), spirituality, and the masses that abide to religion aren't really to blame with the whole "religion is dangerous and a plague to our planet" bull****. Those things stand for a lot of good, and many spiritual practicioners are good people that stand for good things. You wanna be mad at someone, be mad at the people pulling the strings of people, making them into puppets, for their own twisted agendas.

Now don't get me wrong, I defend these things for getting too much flak, but I myself hate to see the manipulation taking place. I think there is much good to Christianity, and I'm frustrated to see many Christians being unfair in their thinking; quick to judge, vehemently opposing things they are told to without really forming their own opinions, being intolerant without taking the time to really think on a particular issue, and so on. Islam actually has some really good qualities, but the organized religion of Islam of today is really in very bad shape.

My view is some people are just too biased against religion and so on. What I'd like to convey is that I myself see flaws in religion (much more so in certain ones than others) and can see how (again, as discussed earlier) it can be manipulated for bad means, but I really want some who are very anti-religious to try to see that there is a lot of good and merit to religion and spirituality. I definitely see the good things and acknowledge there are problems and that things can be exploited for bad ambitions. I want those who mostly see these things in a negative light to at least try to see more of the positive things and see things in a more balance and fair minded manner.

Also, something I noticed with most people who are anti-religious: Most of their complaints and arguments center around Christianity and Islam. I for one believe they've fallen off their true paths the most of all the major world religions. Especially Christianity in the middle ages and Islam in the modern day era. However, I personally think that the Eastern religions have done better in certain regards than the Western religions. Of course, things haven't been perfect with them; of course not. But I can't think of any holy wars started by people abiding to them (there was Jihad in India several centuries ago, but the Muslims instigated that). I'm not saying there weren't any at all, but there haven't been as many as the ones from the Western religions, and nothing on the scale of the crusades in the west/Middle East. Most wars in Asia have come down to warfare not centered on religion. Mostly about cultural and ethnic conflicts and socio-political conflicts. Groups of people engage in wars. Sometimes religion is in the equation, and sometimes it isn't.

Another thing I appreciate about Buddhism is that I think it is the religion that has practiced what it preaches the best (again, it is not perfect, by no means). Again, a lot of devoutly religious people and secular humanists and such butt heads, but for secular humanists, I encourage them to check out Buddhism and Taoism. I'm a spiritual person and value these religions and their philosophies, and I think atheists and agnostics can find value in their philosophies and teachings, which incorporate much logic and correlate well with science and scientific thought, and their ideas and teachings about ethics and good morals, which are mostly approached with logic.

If you are talking about the organizations that collect taxes and declare that their followers must go on crusades (which would be the Church in the Dark Age), then I agree with you.

It's not only Christianity. Think primitive. Picture an archetypal ancient tribe. Who were the ones that held power over their peers, other than the chieftains? That's right, the elders, who acted as the religious leaders. They held "knowledge" that the rest didn't have. And that "knowledge" is what they used to hold their position of inequality.

I'm not saying they were intentionally doing so in order to take advantage of others, but that's what, objectively speaking, it boiled down to.

Quote:

However, I think that "religion" is a loaded word, and if you use the above definition as a blanket term, there will be problems.

Indeed, it's a loaded term, especially when people start equating irrational beliefs to religion (which is what I see a lot of people are doing in this thread, and everywhere else). Everyone has irrational beliefs--that's something we can't avoid until we somehow evolve into a more advanced species. Not everyone has a religion.

Religion is, by definition, an organized set of irrational beliefs constituted by consensus of a number of people. And as soon as this consensus is formed, as with every organized corps in the history of humanity, a division is born between "the organizers" and "the rest", who follow the formers' directives. A single person believing the sun is a god does not make it a religion, especially when it lacks legitimacy with his or her peers. But take a sizable number of people within any given society, preferably the majority, who believe that--inherently, some sort of organization within such a group of people must be born, because it's necessary to maintain such a belief consistent amongst each individual person. And as soon as such an organization is born the religion is finally constituted, and a sector of the believing population find themselves with power over their peers, because they are the ones who determine the "truth", since they're the ones responsible for keeping the religion consistent.

It's not much more complex than that. It's hard to picture it with modern religions, since they've been around for a long time and they're way too ingrained in our minds, but really, that's all it boils down to. The problem is, having an irrational belief (or set of beliefs) does not make you religious. Those beliefs must be shared, by consensus, amongst a number of people--and that's where the sticky part begins, as I mentioned before.

__________________

Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.

Of course I was quick to be defensive, too many people are too biased against religion. *snicker*

Number one, if you say religion makes manipulation easier, that still isn't the fault of a particular religion. This isn't a failing of a religion, this is a failing of corrupt men. It only makes manipulation easier because so many people deeply value religion and/or spirituality. That is not the fault of religion and spirituality, and these things being used to manipulate people for bad agendas is indeed a very immoral thing.

I'd say it's also the fault of the "sheep mentality". "Everyone around me is of the religion X, so I'll be, too" or "Everyone says religion X says Y, I'm of religion X, so Y is true."

Note, "sheep mentality" is a survival trait. Fosters cooperation. But it also has its drawbacks.

I'd also agree that religion has done us a lot of good, along with the bad. Even what WK would decry as an injustice, the funneling of resources toward people who've done nothing to deserve them so they can live in relative luxury, has given people the time and leisure to work on making human knowledge progress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It's not only Christianity. Think primitive. Picture an archetypal ancient tribe. Who were the ones that held power over their peers, other than the chieftains? That's right, the elders, who acted as the religious leaders. They held "knowledge" that the rest didn't have. And that "knowledge" is what they used to hold their position of inequality.

I'm not saying they were intentionally doing so in order to take advantage of others, but that's what, objectively speaking, it boiled down to.

Why shouldn't the ones with "knowledge" be respected? Are you saying doctors and scholars should get a dayjob instead of being paid for being doctors and scholars?

Why shouldn't the ones with "knowledge" be respected? Are you saying doctors and scholars should get a dayjob instead of being paid for being doctors and scholars?

Because such knowledge is based on... no actual facts at all? That's why I put it between quotes. People trust those religious leaders blindly without even questioning what they say.

Mind you, there's another problem with blindly trusting everyone with some knowledge we supposedly don't have, but in a relatively more organized society, it's easier to trust someone with a medical degree than a random healer in a village where scientific medicine hasn't seen the light of the day.

Religious "truth" is as arbitrary as it gets. I think we can all see it today, what with the Christian church's hatred for homosexuals, condoms and that sort of stuff. It all depends on the mood of the people making the rules.

__________________

Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.

This is getting nasty, of course I go through these arguments alot with people nowadays.

Interesting Point: Hitler was actually quite religious, you can go research it actually and he uses God not just as a tool to spur his crowds but as a reason and motivator also.

Me and my buds have always laughed about Buddhism, because really we see it more as a philosophy than a religion (The Chinese Buddhism anyways).

I think the problem with Christianity and its Bible or other religions and their source texts is that we actually have no idea how factual those things accounts are. Remember the saying "Don't believe everything you read?" the Bible isn't a very objective source, it's an account in favour of and it was meant to legitamize the religion, of course you could say all history is nonobjective "The winners write the history books." but that's beyond the point, what we have with the Bible and other texts is a single document retranslated over and over again and having no other supporting evidence for its cause than itself and now the breath of millions of people. But it's not all lies though, its been proved that the Bible included several factual locations of places, etc, but like for any other book, having somethings true doesn't make everything else true.

And before I go offending anyone know this, I used to believe in God (When I was a kid some slightly older kid gasped at my disbelief and told me I was going to hell, which is WHY I dislike teaching religion to young impressionable children, let them choose one for themselves, or not when they are mature enough to understand it!) but as I grew older, I couldn't accept him because he didn't bring any fulfillment in my life, he may to any of you though and like I said I don't care. You can be anything you like so long you don't bother me, or do something monumentally stupid.

Because such knowledge is based on... no actual facts at all? That's why I put it between quotes. People trust those religious leaders blindly without even questioning what they say.

It was as close to facts as anything they had at the time. It's easy for us, thousands of years later, to laugh at their beliefs in spirits and such things. Maybe in two thousand years, snot nosed kids will laugh at us and our quantum physics. Thing is, it's what made sense to them at the time. Just as phlogiston made sense at some point. They weren't being stupid or anything. And I bet some guys healed by the shaman did get better. Was he as good as a modern doctor with modern tools? Of course not. Probably not, anyway... But he was what they had. And he did know a few medicinal plants, even if he thought it was all about spirits or something, instead of biochemistry.

Quote:

Mind you, there's another problem with blindly trusting everyone with some knowledge we supposedly don't have, but in a relatively more organized society, it's easier to trust someone with a medical degree than a random healer in a village where scientific medicine hasn't seen the light of the day.

But that's the point, isn't it? At the time religion was created, they hadn't even invented the written language to write diplomas with.

Quote:

Religious "truth" is as arbitrary as it gets. I think we can all see it today, what with the Christian church's hatred for homosexuals, condoms and that sort of stuff. It all depends on the mood of the people making the rules.

Yes and no. While they do have a lot of influence, there are limits to how arbitrary they can get. The Pope may say "no" to condoms, but plenty of catholics will use them all the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

And before I go offending anyone

I think it was too late from the moment you said you laughed at Buddhism. The next paragraph probably didn't help either.

Quote:

know this, I used to believe in God (When I was a kid some slightly older kid gasped at my disbelief and told me I was going to hell, which is WHY I dislike teaching religion to young impressionable children, let them choose one for themselves, or not when they are mature enough to understand it!)

Eh. From the point of view of someone who believes that not being devout will lead you to hell, it'd be criminal not to teach your kids how to avoid that fate.

Quote:

but as I grew older, I couldn't accept him because he didn't bring any fulfillment in my life,

You believe based on whether it brings you "fulfillment" or not? How is that different from countless believers out there who have faith and nothing else?

I'm not judging them, saying they were evil or something like that. I'm not saying it didn't "work" for them. Feudalism "worked". Free-market liberalism "worked". Democracy "works". That is, until a better alternative levels up the field a bit.

I'm not saying they should have come up with medical science at the time, or realized that religion was a glorified caste system. I'd be stupid if I thought that--they didn't even have the tools with which they could come up with those conclusions.

But it's about progress. It takes time, but it happens... or at least I'd like to think it happens. It was natural for religion to occur, as it was natural for slavery to occur, and for feudalism to occur, and eventually, for slavery to be abolished, for free-market capitalism to crash and burn, and so on. And I believe it to be natural, if we wish to somehow attain a less inequal, more critical-thinking society, for religion to disappear, since the only thing it does, in its structure as an institution, is to establish inequality.

__________________

Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.

@But it's about progress. It takes time, but it happens... or at least I'd like to think it happens. It was natural for religion to occur, as it was natural for slavery to occur, and for feudalism to occur, and eventually, for slavery to be abolished, for free-market capitalism to crash and burn, and so on. And I believe it to be natural, if we wish to somehow attain a less inequal, more critical-thinking society, for religion to disappear, since the only thing it does, in its structure as an institution, is to establish inequality.

We always "laughed" at Buddhism because Chinese Buddhism never occured to us as religious because if you knew anything about it you'd realize that they objectively speaking there is no great worship of a spiritual being (Other than Buddah, whom was an actual guy, but really didn't do much to spread his "religion") Please, whatever you may do, do not try to take out a piece of my sentence in the intent to critize that single part and not at my whole argument, you clearly haven't read through it fully and only seem to enjoy responding to things that jump at you.

And how is that criminal? Making a child believe in exactely what you believe in because you think its right, giving them no alternative and forcing them to believe in that thing without a full knowledge and understanding of it. How is that criminal? If anything trying to brainwash them without their consent is criminal, by your arguemnt you'd be legitamizing parents teaching their kids to be racist, intolerant, violent, or other nasty things; because they believe in those things. How is that anyway to raise children?

I was being very objective, I've been doing alot of arguments and believe me I have many reasons to put down religion as a whole, but I'm not going to. I'm not going to try offend people because really, your beliefs are none of my business. But I've always held firm that every person has a right to their own beliefs and its unfair to children to influence them and in the same way block out other influences.

And if you read the remainder of my fulfillment thing, I included that other people may gain the fulfillment from a religion which I don't happen to get. Soo good for them.

Please, before you go trying to pick out my message of tolerance can you atleast also try to stay objective, or atleast read the whole argument?

We always "laughed" at Buddhism because Chinese Buddhism never occured to us as religious because if you knew anything about it you'd realize that they objectively speaking there is no great worship of a spiritual being (Other than Buddah, whom was an actual guy, but really didn't do much to spread his "religion") Please, whatever you may do, do not try to take out a piece of my sentence in the intent to critize that single part and not at my whole argument, you clearly haven't read through it fully and only seem to enjoy responding to things that jump at you.

Just because I read it fully doesn't mean I have to approve of it. And as a matter of fact, I don't particularly care what you think of Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that if you really intend to avoid being offensive, saying you laugh at people's beliefs is a bad idea. And saying it's not a religion? That's not good either. I mean, I'm not a Buddhist, so I don't care. But if someone were to be a Buddhist, and consider it his religion rather than just his philosophy, well, I can see why he'd be offended.

Quote:

And how is that criminal? Making a child believe in exactely what you believe in because you think its right, giving them no alternative and forcing them to believe in that thing without a full knowledge and understanding of it. How is that criminal?

Try to see it from their point of view. It's not just "what they believe" to them. It's "what's true". Like "if you go out improperly clothed when it's cold, you'll catch a cold". Teaching kids to say their prayers is like teaching them to eat their greens or look both ways before they cross the street. Only instead of teaching them to avoid diabetes or getting run over by a car, they teach them to avoid the excruciating flames of hell.

Quote:

If anything trying to brainwash them without their consent is criminal, by your arguemnt you'd be legitamizing parents teaching their kids to be racist, intolerant, violent, or other nasty things; because they believe in those things. How is that anyway to raise children?

I support parents doing their best for their children. I support parents teaching their progeny about the world as well as they can. Of course, it'd be good if all parents were tolerant and rational, and taught that to their kids. It'd be even better if they could impart them with an open mind and critical thinking skills. But if the best they can be as human beings and parents is racist bigots, and they teach their kids to be the same, well, that's unfortunate. That's where society will have to pick up the slack and try to teach their children better. But I can at least acknowledge that they honestly tried to teach their children about the world.

Quote:

I was being very objective, I've been doing alot of arguments and believe me I have many reasons to put down religion as a whole, but I'm not going to.

No, if you're not going to post those arguments, I really don't have to take you at your word.

Quote:

I'm not going to try offend people because really, your beliefs are none of my business. But I've always held firm that every person has a right to their own beliefs and its unfair to children to influence them and in the same way block out other influences.

Influencing the children you raise isn't unfair, it's an inevitability. Admittedly, you don't have to drag them to church with you, but not doing so may requires some distance from your own beliefs. It's not something that's particularly common.

Quote:

And if you read the remainder of my fulfillment thing, I included that other people may gain the fulfillment from a religion which I don't happen to get. Soo good for them.

You don't get it. The problem, if you can call it that, is that "I find the belief in X fulfilling, so I believe X" is the kind of argument religious people use. As if being warm and fuzzy was any kind of proof.

Quote:

Please, before you go trying to pick out my message of tolerance can you atleast also try to stay objective, or atleast read the whole argument?

And how, exactly, was I not objective?

And by the way, saying that "objectively", you have many reasons - that you're not even going to expose - to look down on religions, but that you're nice enough not to care isn't being tolerant. It's being condescending.

I don't understand why you're try to make me look like a dick. I don't honestly believe for a moment that you have any right to attempt to belittle my own opinons. Literally you're not at all understanding what I'm trying to say, in fact you're doing the exact same thing which I pointed out; you're just looking at different points and attacking them and not the argument in whole, this is no time for a quote war, but if it is then fine;

Quote:

Just because I read it fully doesn't mean I have to approve of it. And as a matter of fact, I don't particularly care what you think of Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that if you really intend to avoid being offensive, saying you laugh at people's beliefs is a bad idea. And saying it's not a religion? That's not good either. I mean, I'm not a Buddhist, so I don't care. But if someone were to be a Buddhist, and consider it his religion rather than just his philosophy, well, I can see why he'd be offended.

I can be so much more offensive, if anything you're being offensive by trying to troll me into some sort of climax. If you had any sense of the context of laugh you'd realize that there's no actual laughing, how do I give the implication that I call Buddism a joke? Never, I simply used the word laughing, because I never considered it a religion because it didn't fit what most people see as a religion, how am I putting them down? And how would that even be an insult, I'm not degrading their beliefs at all, just pointing out there's a noticeable difference.

Quote:

Try to see it from their point of view. It's not just "what they believe" to them. It's "what's true". Like "if you go out improperly clothed when it's cold, you'll catch a cold". Teaching kids to say their prayers is like teaching them to eat their greens or look both ways before they cross the street. Only instead of teaching them to avoid diabetes or getting run over by a car, they teach them to avoid the excruciating flames of hell.

That's a terrible fallacy you've commited, I never said that all the teachings were bad. There's a difference between vegetables are good for your health (a fact) and if you don't believe in X you suffer Y for eternity (belief). Now you might not know the difference (One which holds factual evidence and one which is unprovable) let me put it in words you might understand, you're comparing teach religion and the health benefits of vegetables in such a way; you can back up with evidence that vegetables = good for health and that me not believing in God will put me in Hell are both legitamite arguments. One of them isn't, now which one is that?

Quote:

I support parents doing their best for their children. I support parents teaching their progeny about the world as well as they can. Of course, it'd be good if all parents were tolerant and rational, and taught that to their kids. It'd be even better if they could impart them with an open mind and critical thinking skills. But if the best they can be as human beings and parents is racist bigots, and they teach their kids to be the same, well, that's unfortunate. That's where society will have to pick up the slack and try to teach their children better. But I can at least acknowledge that they honestly tried to teach their children about the world.

Then what's wrong with having society as a whole allowing children religious/spiritual alternatives? You've contradicted yourself greatly and that's no way to support your argument.

Quote:

No, if you're not going to post those arguments, I really don't have to take you at your word.

Neither do I for your own, don't be condescending, I withdraw those arguments as courtesy, in no way did I tell you to challenge them.

Quote:

Influencing the children you raise isn't unfair, it's an inevitability. Admittedly, you don't have to drag them to church with you, but not doing so may requires some distance from your own beliefs. It's not something that's particularly common.

What are you talking about, of course it's unfair, just because its "inevitable" doesn't make it anyway more fair. People can choose to not dragging them to church, but they don't, why? Because they don't choose to. I'm confident that most Athiest parents would be fine with the beliefs that their child may have, it may be undermining their own beliefs but I doubt they'd have a problem with it. We can take the many examples from real life; a religious group of people may look down, ostracize etc a nonreligious person, should it be the other way around, a group of Athiest would be less likely of doing the same, why? Because in no way are they indoctrinated to ostracize those of different beliefs, unlike many other religions. This is of course never proven, but social psychology would no doubt have some support in this.

Quote:

You don't get it. The problem, if you can call it that, is that "I find the belief in X fulfilling, so I believe X" is the kind of argument religious people use. As if being warm and fuzzy was any kind of proof.

When did I say it was proof? I was just pointing out that it was a factor in my choice for being an Athiest. Was I using it in anyway to legitamize my argument?

Quote:

And how, exactly, was I not objective?

And by the way, saying that "objectively", you have many reasons - that you're not even going to expose - to look down on religions, but that you're nice enough not to care isn't being tolerant. It's being condescending.

You're not objective because you strayed off the point of this topic; describe your religious beliefs. Sounds familiar? Yea, that's the original purpose of the thread, not FLAME WAR, which right now seems like what you're going for. you've used ery negative and offensive language.

And believe it or not, not caring about other people's beliefs and such even though I have reasons to look down upon them is tolerant. If it isn't what is? Being a mighty person whom is accepting of everyone's religion in the same time? That's not very tolerant to the Athiest is it? Atleast I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong except for me. I'm stating an opinon, not an argumnt, which it now has become. Are you trying to make me out as some sort of crazy anti-religious scumbag? Because with your questioning and utter lack of evidence to back up your points (All I see are opinons) I find no actual value in your bickering. State your opinon and move along, I think that's the purpose of the thread, and attack me on it, just not here, go PM me or something. Or better yet at my member's space, it's been getting quite there.

I'm not judging them, saying they were evil or something like that. I'm not saying it didn't "work" for them. Feudalism "worked". Free-market liberalism "worked". Democracy "works". That is, until a better alternative levels up the field a bit.

I'm not saying they should have come up with medical science at the time, or realized that religion was a glorified caste system. I'd be stupid if I thought that--they didn't even have the tools with which they could come up with those conclusions.

But it's about progress. It takes time, but it happens... or at least I'd like to think it happens. It was natural for religion to occur, as it was natural for slavery to occur, and for feudalism to occur, and eventually, for slavery to be abolished, for free-market capitalism to crash and burn, and so on. And I believe it to be natural, if we wish to somehow attain a less inequal, more critical-thinking society, for religion to disappear, since the only thing it does, in its structure as an institution, is to establish inequality.

I see that WanderingKnight seems to have very cynical view on the world. To think that religion disappearing would lead to more equal and critical thinking society is very bias. I really can't see how religion disappearing would lead to more equal society. Religions tend to promote equality of people and religion at its core have very positive ideas. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and other religions do teach tolerance to its followers. Even Malcolm X, who was very much for segregation between races changed his mind after viewing the real teaching of Muslim religion. The thing that you want to disappear should be the people who abuses idea of religion.

I see that WanderingKnight seems to have very cynical view on the world.

When I grow up, I wanna be Gregory House

Quote:

Religions tend to promote equality of people and religion at its core have very positive ideas.

Oh, they do? But tell me, how does the position of a "religious leader" work?

Don't see too much equality going on there. Especially since it's the religious leaders the ones who dictate what should go in or out of a religion and what a good faithful follower should do.

Quote:

The thing that you want to disappear should be the people who abuses idea of religion.

There we go again with the old, irrational "it's not the structure, it's THE PEOPLE!". Duh, of course it's the people. But how do you suppose the people with power to manipulate others can disappear when the very definition of a religion (as I explained before) presupposes their existence?

__________________

Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.

Oh, they do? But tell me, how does the position of a "religious leader" work?

Don't see too much equality going on there. Especially since it's the religious leaders the ones who dictate what should go in or out of a religion and what a good faithful follower should do.

There we go again with the old, irrational "it's not the structure, it's THE PEOPLE!". Duh, of course it's the people. But how do you suppose things can work out if the very definition of a religion (as I explained before) presupposes a structure separating the core leaders from the rest of the followers?

Lol on the first part .
Well your second part yes there are religious leader but its like the society itself. It needs someone at the top. But one true thing that dicates the followers are the books or the core ideas, like the bible or the koran, which despite being written by man contains the core religious values. As long as people follow the core concepts instead of following blindly I believe that the world would be lot better place (with flowers and sunshine everywhere ).
Imo these leaders are nothing more than a guide or a teacher who teaches the true value or religion to its people (but they do tend to mix their own ideas into it).

In theory it's good, however it's impossible in reality because someone has to make the rules.

I doubt that we'll ever reach such a great level of civility, after all humans will be humans, it what makes us all so likable . We can dream though, or atleast strive for a relatively good society.

Religion certainly made it alittle easier to insert those morals we have today (Though many may argue that our morals are from other sources, like self preservation) I say that such things require too much thinking and best left to people with time on their hands (philosophers, eg people who enjoy giving advice to people whom are happier than they! )